Case Results – 2018

Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 584-6955

Criminal Defense Representation

The Noonan Defense Firm rigorously defends clients charged with any criminal charge so no matter where you are located in Southeast Massachusetts, expert legal help is just a phone call away. To schedule a free, no-obligation case review and consultation with an experienced criminal defense trial lawyer call our law offices at (508) 584-6955.

When you make the call, rest assured you have taken your first step to find out how best to confront the charges you are facing. You can also use our Free Case Evaluation Form to submit information about your case in confidence, or to request that we contact you.

August 2018 Case Results

August 16, 2018Commonwealth v. J.W.West Roxbury District Court

PROSECUTION AGREES TO DROP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN HAD WITNESSES READY TO TESTIFY THAT THE VICTIM ATTACKED THE DEFENDANT AND HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Defendant was charged with Assault and Battery upon the adult daughter (alleged victim) of his longtime girlfriend. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant punched her in the face, causing her to go to the emergency room where she was treated for injuries to her face. Defendant had a prior conviction for domestic violence.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had two witnesses prepared to testify that the victim was a violent person who attacked them both on prior occasions. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan had another witness prepared to testify that he witnessed the victim attack the Defendant on a prior occasion. Attorney Noonan was prepared to introduce ample evidence showing the victim’s violent character and prior acts of violence initiated by the victim. Attorney Noonan produced two witnesses who witnessed the actual incident between the Defendant and the victim. The two witnesses were prepared to testify that they observed the victim attack the Defendant and they saw the Defendant act in self-defense. On the day of trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge after one-year, so long as the Defendant complied with conditions and stayed out of trouble. With this outcome, Defendant was not required to admit any guilt or wrongdoing.

August 15, 2018Commonwealth v. J.T.
Brockton District Court

ASSAULT CHARGES DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING IN FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MOTORISTS IN BROCKTON. CLIENT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.

Brockton Police were dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident and a fight in progress between the two drivers. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim who reported that the Defendant struck him in the forehead with a stick. Officers observed a visible injury to the victim’s forehead. Our client was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Batter with a Dangerous Weapon for allegedly striking the other man in the face with a wooden stick.

Result: At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense. Our client was parked in the street partially blocking traffic. The other party intentionally drove into the rear-end of our client’s vehicle. Both men exited their vehicles. Our client saw something in the other man’s hand, grew fearful, and grabbed a wooden stick out of his car in self-defense. Attorney Noonan produced an Affidavit of a witness who reported that he saw the other male driver yell, “You mother******, move your car or I’m going to run your ass over.” Our client moved his vehicle several feet but the other driver intentionally drove into the rear of our client’s vehicle. This witness stated that he saw a female in the other man’s car get out of the vehicle holding a plastic bag and proceeded to walk down the street. The witness reported that the other man was acting very aggressively. Another witness reported observing the two men grappling over the stick. This witness observed damage to our client’s car from being rear-ended by the other man. This witness observed that the other man’s car was parked very close to the rear of our client’s vehicle. After the hearing, no criminal complaint issued.

In 2013, when our client was 22 years-old, he was charged with Assault & Battery and Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (a felony) upon his then-girlfriend. There were photographs showing serious injuries to the girlfriend’s face and the Defendant had written a letter to his girlfriend apologizing for what he did. Prior to our representation, our client entered a plea to both charges, admitted to sufficient facts, and was placed on probation for two years with conditions that he receives anger management and substance abuse treatment. In 2015, the charges were dismissed upon his successful completion of probation. Because our client was charged with a felony, he was not eligible to have his record sealed until ten (10) years following the disposition of his case. That is, our client was not eligible to get the felony sealed until 2025. It should be noted that, in October of 2018, new legislation will go into effect regarding record sealing and expungement. Our client was a college graduate. He had hopes of getting a Graduate Degree in Education and fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school science teacher. However, because of the criminal charges on his record, including the felony charge, our client did not feel he could get into Graduate School or get hired as a teacher.

Result: Our client was very discouraged. He felt that he would never be able to become a teacher so he didn’t even try. Then, one day, he called our law office to see if anything could be done. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan reviewed his case and told him about our record sealing laws in Massachusetts and how he could petition the Court to have his record sealed immediately rather than waiting until 2025. Our client decided to give it a shot. At a hearing, our law office presented evidence to convince the Judge order to the sealing of our client’s criminal record.

August 2018

COMPUTER SPECIALIST IS DENIED A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARM’S BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN CONVINCES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CHANGE IT’S MIND AND THEY ISSUE HIS CLIENT A LICENSE TO CARRY.

The client is a 41 year-old, happily married, father of three children. The client applied for a License to Carry Firearms with the police department in his place of residence. The police department denied his application for LTC because of two prior criminal cases on his record, which disqualified him.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the police department with evidence that the two prior criminal cases should not disqualify his client from obtaining an LTC. One of the prior criminal cases, a felony drug conviction, was later vacated by the court and should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. The other prior criminal case, a charge of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, which should not be considered as grounds for disqualification. Attorney Noonan also presented evidence showing that his client was a suitable person to possess a firearm. After considering Attorney Noonan’s evidence, the police department changed its mind and issued the client a license to carry firearms.

July 2018 Case Results

July 27, 2018Commonwealth v. Ritch DorceBrockton District Court

IN A RARE CASE WHERE A DEFENDANT CONFESSES TO A CRIME ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES HIS CLIENT’S INNOCENCE AND WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS IN A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING.

On December 31, 2016, there was a New Year’s Eve party at a home on Orchard Ave. in Brockton. Police received several 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots fired at the home. One call reported that six gunshots were fired. One bullet traveled through a bedroom where a young child had been sleeping. Upon arrival the home, police interviewed several witnesses who lived in the home and were present for the party. Two of the witness immediately informed police that they had Snapchat videos posted by the person who committed the shooting. The Snapchat videos were posted from the account of Ritch Dorce, the Defendant in the case. One video physically showed Dorce present at the party. Another video showed Dorce sitting in the car, holding a firearm, and confessing the shooting. Dorce states: “I just got jumped, but, ayy, it’s OK. I just emptied all my shells. I ain’t got no more shells. But, ayy, I’m about to go back and get some more.” Dorce is then seen releasing the magazine to the firearm. Police interviewed approximately nine individuals who were present at the party. Some witnesses told police that Dorce got into a physical altercation with others at the party over marijuana. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was in the company of approximately 4-5 other males who were also involved in fights with others at the party. Some witnesses reported that Dorce, and the males with him, retrieved baseball bats and damaged a vehicle with bats. Some witnesses reported that Dorce was seen holding a taser. Some witnesses reported that Dorce threatened to come back and shoot the house up. Two witnesses stated that they were outside when they observed two vehicles drive by and fire shots at the house. One witness identified Dorce as sitting in one of the vehicles, which was involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s Snapchat account, which confirmed that Dorce had in fact posted the incriminating videos on his Snapchat account. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, GPS, and tower locations for his cell phone, which allowed police to locate Dorce and arrest him. Dorce agreed to videotape interview with police. In the interview, Dorce admitted that he posted the video but Dorce maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce admitted that he got jumped at the party but he maintained that he was not the shooter. Dorce was charged with: 1) Carrying a Firearm without a License, 2) Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, 3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, 4) Malicious Destruction of Property, and 5) Malicious Damage to a Vehicle.

Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented evidence that somebody else committed the shooting. In his interview, Dorce told police that he attended the party with three other males, one of whom was named Jeff. Dorce stated that he left the party and his cousin gave him a ride to his apartment in Brockton where he met his girlfriend and daughter. While he was in his Brockton home, Dorce received a phone call from Jeff who instructed Dorce to come outside and meet him in his car. While in the car, Jeff told Dorce that he (Jeff) “took care of it” because he didn’t want Dorce “to get his hands dirty.” Jeff then showed Dorce the handgun. At that point, Dorce foolishly decided to post a video on Snapchat of himself holding the handgun and taking credit for the shooting. Dorce stated that he posted the video to let people know not to mess with him. Attorney Noonan presented evidence with regards to Jeff’s true identity and the fact that police did not conduct any investigation into Jeff. Attorney Noonan had his private investigator testify that he was able to locate Jeff’s public Facebook page, which contained posts where Jeff appeared to feel guilty over the fact that Dorce was in jail for something he did not do and Jeff posted that he would take responsibility. The private investigator testified that he confronted Jeff with his posts but Jeff did not deny that he was involved in the shooting. Attorney Noonan argued that the police had evidence that would show Dorce’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting but the police did not bring this evidence to trial. Specifically, Dorce voluntarily handed over his cell phone to police and gave them the password to his phone. Dorce even asked the police to search his phone records, as the records would show that he was not involved in the shooting. Police obtained search warrants for Dorce’s cell phone, including his GPS and cell tower locations for the night of the shooting. Dorce’s cell phone records would show his whereabouts at the time of the shooting. If Dorce’s phone records showed that he was in the vicinity of the shooting at the time the shooting occurred, Attorney Noonan argued, the police would have brought that evidence to trial and showed it to the jury. Attorney Noonan argued that the police could have tested the fingerprints from the shell casings found at the scene in order to prove that Dorce handled the bullets that fired the gun. Attorney Noonan argued that Dorce’s Snapchat video was one of hundreds of videos where Dorce is playing a character as part of an online persona where he tried to look tough and sound tough. Dorce held himself out to be somebody he wasn’t. There was the real Dorce and his online persona. The Snapchat video was simply another example of Dorce trying to sound tough. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Mr. Dorce was not the shooter and they acquitted him of all charges except one charge. The jury found Dorce guilty of only holding the firearm in the Snapchat video but they found that Dorce was not the shooter and was not involved in the shooting. In a rare case where a Defendant confesses to committing a crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proves his client’s innocence.

June 2018 Case Results

Bridgewater Police received a call from a resident stating there was a disabled vehicle parked in the street and the driver appeared to be sitting in the vehicle with his head back. Upon arrival, police observed the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of the road with two tires blown out. The officer approached the driver’s side of the vehicle where the Defendant had been seated. The officer detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked how the tires were blown out and the Defendant stated that he must have hit something back there and pointed down the road. Defendant admitted that he had smoked a roach while attempting to change his tires prior to Defendant calling for a tow truck. Defendant claimed that he had a medical marijuana card but stated that it had been “responded” when he meant to say “expired.” Defendant admitted to drinking two Budweiser beers about three hours ago. There was a female sitting in the front passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle. She told police that Defendant had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol earlier in the night but she felt he was fine to drive. There were two empty nip bottles on the ground outside the vehicle. The female passenger initially stated that the bottles belonged to her but later stated that the Defendant told her to throw out the nip bottles. The officer testified that the Defendant failed several field sobriety tests, such as the Nine Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. Defendant was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation. At the police station, police found a plastic bag containing marijuana in the Defendant’s pant pocket. At the police station, Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which shows that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, above the legal limit.

Result: In order to prove the Defendant guilty of OUI-Liquor and Negligent Operation, the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was the “operator” of the vehicle. At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove that the Defendant, and not the female, was the operator of the vehicle, as there was evidence tending to show that the female could have driven the vehicle. Even though the Defendant had admitted to being the operator, that alone, was insufficient to convict the Defendant unless there was evidence to corroborate that the Defendant was the operator of the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that, besides the Defendant’s admission to operating the vehicle, there was no other evidence to corroborate that he was the driver.

June 19, 2018Commonwealth v. N.H.Plymouth District Court

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING CHARGE AGAINST FLORIDA MAN IS DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS CASE LAW SHOWING HIS CLIENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME

Defendant had a young child with his girlfriend. Defendant, his girlfriend, and the child all lived together in Florida, where the Defendant is from. They recently moved to Plymouth where they lived together in an apartment. The girlfriend and the Defendant had an argument one afternoon. Defendant told the girlfriend that he was taking the child to Florida for a few days to see his family. Defendant told the girlfriend that he would return to Massachusetts with the child after seeing his family. The girlfriend went to the police station to report that the Defendant had kidnapped the child. The police contacted the Defendant, as he was traveling to Florida. Defendant told the police that he had a right to take his child and he was doing nothing illegal. Police continued to contact the Defendant but he did not answer his phone. As the Defendant was in Florida, the girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order against the Defendant in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court, which granted her immediate custody of the child. The Probate and Family Court issued an Order ordering the Defendant to immediately return the child to the girlfriend in Massachusetts. With the assistance of Plymouth Police, the girlfriend filed a Missing Person’s Report. The Plymouth Police Department obtained an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant’s arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Plymouth Police contacted the Tampa Police seeking their assistance in apprehending the Defendant and returning the child to Massachusetts.

Result: Defendant contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan from Florida and explained that he had a warrant for his arrest for the crime of Parental Kidnapping. Attorney Noonan made arrangements for the Defendant to come to Massachusetts to remove the Arrest Warrant. Attorney Noonan brought the Defendant into court and reached an agreement with the prosecution that they would remove the arrest warrant and they hold off on charging the Defendant for one week. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan provided the prosecution with case law showing that the Defendant could not be charged with the crime of Parental Kidnapping because there were no court orders regarding child custody at the time the Defendant took the child to Florida. See Commonwealth v. Beals, 405 Mass. 550 (1989)(where SJC held: parent who has taken his or her children from the other parent before there was any court proceeding cannot be convicted of parental kidnapping.) The prosecution agreed with Attorney Noonan and they dismissed the Parental Kidnapping charge prior to arraignment.

June 7, 2018Commonwealth v. P.C.Framingham District Court

NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST FORMER MARINE AND RETIRED BUSINESS OWNER FOR OPERATING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE

Client is a 77 year-old retired business owner who owned commercial real estate in a shopping center he operated for decades. He was a former special police officer in Natick and Framingham. He was very active in the community. Unfortunately, he amassed a series of motor vehicle offenses, and received three prior tickets for speeding, improper passing, and marked lanes violations. Due to the multitude of driving violations, the client’s license was suspended and he was required to driving classes in order to get his license reinstated. While his license was suspended, client drove his vehicle to do some errands and was pulled over for speeding and was charged with Operating after Suspended License.

Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint so long as the client completes a driving course.

June 5, 2018
Commonwealth v. N.T.
Wareham District Court

FELONY THEFT CHARGE AGAINST UNITED STATES POSTAL WORKER FOR STEALING MAIL IS DISMISSED AFTER A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

A named victim called the Wareham Police to report that a Best Buy gift card that he purchased and mailed to his son had been stolen. Police found that the Defendant had stolen and used the Best Buy card. Specifically, police obtained surveillance video showing the Defendant using the stolen Best Buy Card at a Best Buy store. It was learned that the Defendant, a United States Postal Worker, had stolen the Best Buy card from the envelope that it had been mailed in. The intended recipient’s mailing address for the Best Buy gift card was on the Defendant’s assigned route. The U.S. Postal Service conducted a sting investigation to catch the Defendant in the act of stealing mail. They placed a red envelope, containing cash, in the mail for the Defendant’s mailing route. They put an address on the green envelope, which was not on the Defendant’s assigned route. Per procedure, the Defendant was supposed to have returned the green envelope to the Post Office, as it was not in the Defendant’s assigned route. Undercover postal investigators observed the Defendant preparing to leave in her personal vehicle. The postal investigators recovered the red envelope in the Defendant’s personal vehicle.

Result:Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint not to issue against his client. Attorney Noonan argued that his client did not have the intent necessary to commit the larceny of the red envelope, as it did not appear as though the Defendant knew what was inside the red envelope and the Defendant did not have a sufficient opportunity to return the envelope pursuant to postal procedure. This was a very serious charge because it dealt with a theft of federal proportions from the United States Mail by a United States Postal Worker.

May 2018 Case Results

May 11, 2018Commonwealth v. E.M.Brockton District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST PARAMEDIC AND BRIDGEWATER STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT DISMISSED AFTER CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING

Brockton Police were dispatched to Auto Zone for a reported larceny. Upon arrival, police spoke to the calling party who was an employee working at the cash register. The employee reported that the Defendant came to this register and attempted to purchase three items on his credit card. The cashier told the Defendant that his credit card was declined at which time the Defendant grabbed the items and quickly headed for the door. The cashier yelled to the Defendant, approximately six times, for him to stop and come back into the store. The Defendant fled the store in his vehicle but the cashier wrote down his license plate. The cashier was able to identify the Defendant through the information on his Auto Zone reward card. The officer ran the license plate, which came back to the Defendant. The officer showed a picture of the Defendant’s driver license to the cashier, who immediately identified him as the suspect.

Result:Attorney Gerald J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the Defendant’s payment of restitution to Auto Zone for the stolen items. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan saves his client, a paramedic and college student at Bridgewater State University, from having a criminal record.

May 9, 2018Commonwealth v. John Joyce
Stoughton District Court

IN A MANSLAUGHTER INVESTIGATION FOR A DRUG OVERDOSE, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED, INCLUDING: SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S HOME, AND INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT. LAWYER’S WEEKLY PUBLICATION DID A FEATURE ON THE CASE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

Police responded to a private residence for a drug overdose. Upon arrival to the scene, police found a male lying on the floor of his living room dead of a drug overdose. Police searched the deceased’s pockets and found a rolled up $20 bill with brown residue on the tip of it. Police also found on the deceased’s pocket a folded $20 bill and Keno ticket containing brown powder. The brown powder tested positive for heroin. Police searched the deceased’s cell phone and found text messages with the Defendant showing that the two had met the night before the overdose. Police used the deceased’s cell phone, posing as the deceased, and contacted the Defendant by text message and asked to buy some drugs from the Defendant. Police instructed the Defendant to bring the drugs to a parking lot. Upon Defendant’s arrival to the parking lot, Defendant is immediately arrested as soon as he exits his vehicle. Police search the Defendant’s vehicle and find heroin. Defendant is brought to the Stoughton Police Station where he is interrogated by police. In the interrogation, Defendant tells police that he has heroin and pills in his bedroom. The Defendant signed a form giving police permission to search his home. The Defendant also signs another form giving police permission to search his cell phone. Subsequently, police searched the Defendant’s home where they found heroin and pills. Police intended to use the Defendant’s cell phone records to prove that the Defendant sold the heroin, which caused the deceased to die from a drug overdose. Police intended to use the evidence they obtained from the Defendant to charge him with Manslaughter for having caused the death of the deceased.

Result:Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence in which he sought to suppress the following evidence: statements made by Defendant to police during the interrogation, defendant’s consent for police to search his home, and defendant’s consent for police to search his cell phone. After four hearings, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the evidence was illegally obtained by police. Attorney Noonan proved that the statements made by the Defendant during the police interrogation should have been suppressed because he clearly invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney but the police continued to question him anyway in violation of his constitutional rights. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan proved that the Defendant’s consent for the police to search his home and cell phone was invalid because the Defendant’s consent was not given freely or voluntarily. Specifically, Defendant had never been arrested before, he had no prior involvement with police, and he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. On top of that, Defendant had been tasered by police prior to the interrogation and Defendant remained handcuffed during the interrogation. Officers admitted that the interrogation was aggressive, at times, and involved yelling. The Defendant’s consent to search his home was not voluntary, as there was evidence that police used the Defendant’s mother as a way to coax him into consenting to a search of his home. Defendant lived with his mother and he was concerned for his mother’s well-being should the police show up at her house, unannounced, and start searching throughout the home. In essence, police told the Defendant that things would be easier for his mother if he simply consented to a search of his bedroom.

April 2018 Case Results

Our client was charged with Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Marked Lanes Violation as a result of a car accident. Witnesses reported to police that our client’s vehicle turned into a parking lot, drove through a parking space, struck a wooden pillar, went through some bushes, and struck two pedestrians before crashing into a building.

Result:At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, the injured pedestrians appeared and wanted additional criminal charges brought against the client. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client was responsible for causing the accident but she should not be charged criminally because the case was being resolved through his client’s car insurance. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client’s insurance accepted fault for the accident and his client’s insurance policy had ample coverage to compensate the victims for their injuries.

April 12, 2018Commonwealth v. S.K.Boston Municipal Court

CHARGES OF USING A FAKE I.D. AND UNDERAGE DRINKING ARE DISMISSED AGAINST EMERSON COLLEGE STUDENT

Boston Police went to The Tam, a bar on Tremont Street in Boston, to conduct a licensed premises inspection. While surveilling the crowd of patrons drinking at the bar, police noticed a patron (our client), who looked underage, drinking a Rolling Rock beer. Police approached our client and asked him for proof of his age. Our client handed the officer an I.D. that was fake. Our client admitted to the officers that it was a fake I.D. and provided his real driver’s license showing that he was under the age of 21.

Result:At the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented character evidence showing that his client was a good kid, who made a stupid mistake, and should be given a break. Attorney Noonan introduced his client’s transcript at Emerson College showing that he was a Dean’s List student. Attorney Noonan presented a letter from one of our client’s professors at Emerson College attesting to his good character, work ethic, and how great of a student he was. Our client is majoring in Sports Communications and wishes to someday become a sport’s broadcaster.

April 9, 2018Commonwealth v. P.G.New Bedford District Court

SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD RAPE ARE DISMISSED ON DAY OF TRIAL, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WAS ARMED WITH EVIDENCE SHOWING THE VICTIM WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HIS BIOLOGICAL FATHER, AND NOT THE DEFENDANT.

The alleged victim (A.V.) was the Defendant’s step-son who he helped raise since the child was very young. Defendant and A.V.’s mother divorced. After the divorce, Defendant had no contact with A.V. or his ex-wife. Approximately seven years later, A.V. accused the Defendant of sexually abusing him even though he had not seen him for many years. Through investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan learned that A.V. had a long history of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior. A.V. got into trouble in daycare for engaging in sexual behavior with other children. A.V. got into trouble for engaging in sexual behavior with a neighbor. A.V. got into trouble, several times, at school for engaging in sexual behavior with other kids. Whenever A.V. got into trouble for his sexual misconduct, he was sent to therapy. Eventually, A.V.’s sexualized behavior escalated to the point where he sexually assaulted another student and, as a result, A.V. was criminally charged for his conduct. When A.V. was being interrogated by police after being charged for his own criminal conduct, A.V. accused the Defendant, for the first time, of sexually abusing him, even though A.V. had not seen the Defendant in seven years.

Result:Attorney Patrick J. Noonan conducted an investigation and gathered records of A.V.’s therapy sessions with various social workers and mental health counselors. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that A.V.’s counselors believed that A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained records from the Department of Children and Families showing that A.V.’s mother reported her concerns that A.V.’s biological father might be sexually abusing him. On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two of A.V.’s therapists ready to testify that, in their opinion, A.V. was being sexually abused by his biological father, and not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to prove that the real abuser was A.V.’s biological father, not the Defendant. Attorney Noonan was prepared to show that A.V. had a motive to falsely accuse the Defendant of abusing him because A.V. was too afraid to tell police or others that it was his biological father who had been abusing him.

March 2018 Case Results

The client is a paramedic / EMT. On the night in question, she approached a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock in the Town of Canton. At the checkpoint, the police officer detected an odor of alcohol and observed that the client’s speech was slurred and that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot. The client admitted that she had consumed alcohol. The officer instructed the client to exit the vehicle so he could administer some field sobriety tests. The officer administered several field sobriety tests, including the Alphabet Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test. Based on his observations of the client’s sobriety and her performance on the field sobriety tests, the officer formed the opinion that the client was under the influence of alcohol.

Result:At the trial, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan attacked the testimony of the police officers, questioned their observations, and challenged their opinion that the client was intoxicated. Attorney Noonan pointed out that his client performed well on the field sobriety tests despite having to perform physical tasks while wearing flip-flops and the conditions under which the tests were administered were very difficult. After the police officer testified and the Commonwealth rested its case, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof and the judge found our client not guilty.

The Client is a 32 year-old Vietnamese woman with no criminal record. She works six days a week as a nail technician to support her family, which includes two children, one of whom is severely autistic. On the date of the incident, the client, her husband, and two children were sitting in their SUV in the parking lot of a Starbucks. Her husband, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, was programming an address into the GPS. Meanwhile, a female in a vehicle was waiting to use the client’s parking space. The female operator began to beep her horn and was motioning for the client to back out of the parking space. The client’s severely autistic son became upset, as the other woman was beeping of the horn. The client rolled down the window and told the female to wait but the other female yelled that to the client that she was taking up two parking spaces. The client exited her vehicle and approached the other female and a heated argument ensued. The client claims that the other female made a racial slur, saying: “Go back to where you came from!” The verbal argument turned physical. The female told police that the client punched her, grabbed her, and pulled her. The officer observed that the female was bleeding and had swelling and redness under her left eye. However, the female did admit to the police officer that there was mutual fighting between her and the client. The officer then spoke to the client who stated that the female kicked her in the leg. The officer observed bruises to the client’s leg. The officer charged our client with Assault and Battery for having punched the other female in the face.

Result:At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that his client acted in self-defense when she struck the other female. The police was vague as to who struck who first. The police report did not contain any concrete evidence showing that the client struck first. The police report did give the impression that the fighting was mutual. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the officer also charged the other female with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon for having kicked the client with her shoe. After the hearing, the Clerk Magistrate declined to issue the complaint against our client.

February 2018Stonehill College vs. Student

NO CRIMINAL CHARGES OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST STONEHILL COLLEGE STUDENT FOR PUNCHING ANOTHER STUDENT IN THE FACE RESULTING IN STITCHES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

Client was a junior at Stonehill College in Easton, MA. One night, he was attending an on-campus party when another male student approached him and told him that he had made advances on the client’s girlfriend. This entire incident was being video recorded on another student’s phone. For his advances on the client’s girlfriend, the male student offered to let the client punch him in the face. The Defendant declined the invitation. The male student then encouraged the client to punch him in the face. At the male student’s insistence, the client punched him in the face just one time. The client considered the matter resolved by one punch. Unfortunately, the male student began to bleed profusely from his head, which required medical treatment and numerous stitches. For some reason, the male student decided to report the incident to campus police. As a result, the school administration brought charges against the client for Assault & Battery pursuant to the school’s code of conduct. The client was facing very serious consequences, which included expulsion and termination from the school.

Result:Attorney Gerald J. Noonan prepared the client for a Hearing before the school administration for his violation of the school’s code of conduct. It was argued that the client did not commit an Assault and Battery because, like the criminal offense of Assault & Battery, the battery (or intentional touching) must be done without the other party’s consent. Here, the battery was consensual because the victim encouraged and insisted that the client punch him in the face. Based on the video, it was clear that the client had no intention to strike the victim and he even declined the victim’s invitation to punch him in the face. Although the client’s conduct may have been improper, he did not commit any criminal offense. After a hearing, the school decided not to expel or terminate the client from the school and they allowed him to graduate.

February 13, 2018Commonwealth v. P.M.Wrentham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST DISMISSED, AS ATTORNEY GERALD J. NOONAN ARGUES THAT THE FIREARMS WERE INOPERABLE, HEIRLOOMS, WHICH WERE PASSED DOWN BY HIS GRANDFATHER.

Client’s ex-wife obtained a 209A abuse prevention order against her ex-husband, the Defendant. Franklin Police went to the Defendant’s home in Franklin to serve him with the restraining order and to seize his firearms. Police observed that the firearms were in a case but not properly secured and they charged the client with Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L)

Result:Client received a summons to appear in Wrentham District Court for an arraignment on the charge of Improper Storage of a Firearm. Client immediately retained Gerald J. Noonan who was able to dismiss the criminal complaint prior to arraignment on the grounds that his client was entitled to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charge. If the client were arraigned, the gun charge would be on his record. At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Noonan argued that the firearms were inoperable. The firearms were passed down to the client by his deceased grandfather. Client never fired the guns nor did he have any ammunition for the guns. The client was planning on selling the firearms to a dealer and using the money to make a down payment on a new house. Client was a Medical Technologist and biomedical laboratory technician. Client had no criminal record. The clerk magistrate decided to hold the matter open for a period of time and so long as the client stays out of trouble the charge will be dismissed.

February 8, 2018Commonwealth v. I.R.Barnstable District Court

CHARGES OF FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT AND IMPROPER STORAGE OF A FIREARM AGAINST CAPE COD MAN AND RUSSIAN IMMIGRANT ARE DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING.

Defendant, a resident of Hyannis, called police while intoxicated to report that his roommate stole his gun. When Barnstable Police arrived at the scene, Defendant was intoxicated and was yelling that his roommate stole his gun. Police found the gun sitting on the top of some laundry. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody because he was intoxicated and posed a threat of harming himself or his roommate. Police charged Defendant with making False Reports to Police Officers (G.L. c. 269, §13A) due to falsely accusing his roommate of stealing his gun. Police also charged Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm.

Result:At the clerk’s hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the clerk to dismiss the charge of Filing a False Police Report for lack of probable cause. Attorney Noonan brought Defendant’s roommate to the hearing as a character witness. The roommate worked for Defendant’s roofing company and Defendant gave him a place to live because he was homeless. The roommate did not want the Defendant charged and wanted the case dismissed. The roommate stated that the Defendant was a good boss and a good man for giving him a place to live while he got back on his feet. The criminal complaint will be dismissed so long as Defendant remains out of trouble.

February 6, 2018Commonwealth v. M.D.Brockton District Court

DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO POLICE OF STEALING $6,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER ARE SUPPRESSED FROM EVIDENCE, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THAT POLICE DID NOT READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS.

Client was an employee for a company in Brockton. A fraud investigator from the company confronted the Defendant with evidence showing that he stole more than $6,000 from the company. The fraud investigator told Defendant he was going to the police to report it and it would be a good idea for the Defendant to come along. At the Brockton police station, the fraud investigator gave the police officer company records showing the Defendant’s thefts from the company totaling more than $6,000. The police officer proceeded to interrogate and question the Defendant about the thefts. During the interrogation, Defendant admitted that he stole from the company. Based largely on his confession, the officer charged him with Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 266, §30)

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress his client’s confession to the police officer on the grounds that the police officer did not read him his Miranda Rights. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Suppress and his client’s confession is now suppressed from evidence. At trial, the Commonwealth cannot introduce any evidence that the Defendant confessed to the police officer that he stole the money.

January 2018 Case Results

January 31, 2018Commonwealth v. Colin O.Quincy District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL CHARGES, INCLUDING OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, POSSESSION OF A CLASS C SUBSTANCE, AND OPERATING TO ENDANGER.

Quincy Police were dispatched to a call from a concerned citizen reporting that a person (defendant) was passed out and slumped over the steering wheel of his car. Upon arrival to the scene, police spoke to the witness who pointed to the Defendant’s car as it was leaving the scene. Police pursued the vehicle. When police came upon the vehicle, they discovered there had been an accident. Police spoke to the other driver who reported that the Defendant struck her vehicle. Police spoke to the Defendant who was lethargic and nodding off. Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana. Defendant admitted to recently taking a prescription medication called Seroquel, which made him very sleepy and tired. Police searched Defendant’s vehicle and discovered a pill, which was later tested and found to be Clonazepam, a Class C Controlled Substance. In his vehicle, police also found syringes and other items consistent with intravenous drug use. With the Clonazepam in the vehicle, police charged Defendant with Possession of a Class C Substance (G.L. c. 94C, §34). Police charged him with Operating under the influence of Drugs (G.L. c. 90, §24) and Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a).

Result:At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to find his client not guilty on all charges. First, Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Seroquel was a “drug.” The Commonwealth went on to claim that Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin, or both. Second, Attorney Noonan argued that the police officer could not give an opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of marijuana or heroin because the police officer was not qualified as an expert. Third, the Commonwealth sought to prove that the pill was Clonazepam through a Drug Certificate of Analysis where the crime lab tested the pill and identified it as Clonazepam. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge to throw out the Drug Certificate because the Commonwealth failed to lay a proper foundation. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the pill identified in the Drug Certificate may not have been the same pill found in the trash can because the police officer testified that the pill in the vehicle was “blue” where the drug certificate identified the pill as “green.” Lastly, Attorney argued that his client had no idea that there was a pill in the vehicle. This was a work vehicle where other workers had access to the vehicle and the pill could have belonged to any of the workers who previously used the vehicle. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have any knowledge that a Clonazepam pill was in the work truck because it was buried at the bottom of a trash barrel with other trash and discarded items.

January 30, 2018Matter of S.H.

NO CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST DOG WALKER FOR STEALING ALCOHOL FROM CLIENT’S HOME.

Client was employed as a dog walker for a dog walking company in Sharon. The company received a call from one client who reported that he had video of the dog walker stealing alcohol from the bar in his home. When confronted by the company, she admitted to stealing the alcohol. The company fired her. The company contacted her stating the customer wanted restitution for the stolen alcohol or they would press charges.

Result:Client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan who immediately resolved the dispute with the dog walking company and the customer. No criminal charges were brought against our client.

January 23, 2018Commonwealth v. L.L.Chelsea District Court

LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST HOTEL EMPLOYEE FOR STEALING MONEY DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING, AS ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN REACHES A RESOLUTION WITH THE HOTEL.

Defendant, Brockton resident, is a 25 year-old Haitian immigrant with no criminal record and father of a newborn baby. He was working the front desk at a hotel in Revere when a customer came in to rent a room. The customer stated he didn’t have enough money to pay the fee for an overnight guest. The customer asked the Defendant to give him a break and only charge him $100. Defendant allegedly accepted the customer’s proposal, pocketed the $100, didn’t register the customer in the computer system, and allowed him to stay in a room overnight. The manager viewed surveillance video showing the Defendant pocketing the cash and not registering the guest. When confronted by the manager, Defendant admitted to taking the cash. The manager filed an application for criminal complaint against defendant for Larceny (G.L. c. 266, §30).

Result:At the clerk magistrate hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had the opportunity to mediate the dispute with the hotel manager and owner. They reached an agreement where the Defendant agreed to pay the hotel restitution for the money they lost. If the Defendant stays out of trouble, the charge will be dismissed.

January 12, 2018Commonwealth v. H.Q.Hingham District Court

JURY FINDS DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF OUI-LIQUOR (0.08% OR ABOVE) AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PRESENTS EXPERT EVIDENCE SHOWING DEFENDANT’S BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL WAS BELOW 0.08% AT THE TIME SHE OPERATED HER VEHICLE.

Norwell Police were dispatched to the scene of a single car crash. Upon arrival, police found the Defendant’s car, flipped over, more than 100 feet off the ground in a drainage ditch. Defendant admitted to being the operator. At trial, the officer testified that he detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant and her eyes appeared to be red and bloodshot. The officer testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. The officer contacted an ambulance, as the Defendant appeared injured. The DA called the paramedic who testified that it was his opinion that the Defendant was intoxicated. The DA introduced hospital records showing that Defendant’s blood was tested for the presence of alcohol. The DA called an expert witness who testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was between 0.117% and 0.124%.

Result:At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called an expert witness, Dr. Samson, who is a toxicologist, specializing in alcohol. Dr. Samson testified that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was below 0.08% based on conversion factors she applied, which were generally accepted in the scientific community. In addition, Dr. Samson testified that the hospital’s blood test was not scientifically reliable and produced a higher alcohol level than what it actually was. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of Operating under the Influence of Liquor with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or above, as the jury was not convinced that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.08% or above.

Plaintiff and Defendant, residents of Brockton, had an ongoing feud. Plaintiff was in a relationship with Defendant’s soon to be divorced husband. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant would come to her home, on numerous occasions, and pound on the door and would also follow her in her car. On one occasion, Plaintiff called police to report that Defendant confronted her in a parking lot and threatened her. Plaintiff obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (G.L. c. 258E) against the Defendant. A hearing was scheduled with regards to whether the restraining order would be extended for an additional period of time.